CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 19 juin 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s90309795 { width:97.64%; margin-left:4.75pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s81F78975 { width:21.8%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27C386BA { width:12.48%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s298A54FD { width:25.16%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29FE177 { width:24.74%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5A8F91D6 { width:15.82%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4711A539 { width:21.8%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD1345526 { width:12.48%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s73C7124B { width:25.16%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD9907953 { width:24.74%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC2FECD0 { width:15.82%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)71 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Ospina Vargas, Leo Zappia, Bastone, Campisi, Di Giacomo, and Cavallo against Italy   (Application No. 40750/98, 77744/01, 59638/00, 24358/02, 25522/03 and 9786/03, judgments of 14 October 2004, 29 September 2005, 11 July 2006, 11 July 2006, 24 January 2008 and 4 March 2008, final on 14 January 2005, 29 December 2005, 11 October 2006, 11 October 2006, 24 April 2008 and 4 June 2008 respectively)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the Court found:   - in all these cases, violations of the applicants’ right to respect for private life following the arbitrary monitoring of their correspondence during their detention due to shortcomings in the Prison Administration Act No.   354/1975 (violations of Article 8);   - in one of these cases (Di Giacomo) a violation of Article 13 due to the lack of effective remedy against the decisions ordering monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)71   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of Ospina Vargas, Leo Zappia, Bastone, Campisi, Di Giacomo, and Cavallo against Italy     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life resulting from the arbitrary monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence during their detention (violation of Article 8) due to shortcomings in the Prison Administration Act No.   354/1975 in force at the material time (May 1995 – December 2003). This law allowed too much latitude, in particular with regard to the imposition of monitoring of correspondence and to its duration and, in addition, did not explicitly prohibit the monitoring of correspondence with the Convention organs. In the Ospina Vargas case, the Court also held that the interception of a package containing a book adressed to the applicant and the prison’s authorities’ decision not to hand it over to him was also in violation of Article   8. Moreover, in the Di Giacomo case, the Court found a violation of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective remedy against the decisions ordering monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence.   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total OSPINA VARGAS 40750/98 - - 5   000 euros 5   000 euros Paid on 13/04/2005   In the other cases, either the applicants submitted no claim in respect of just satisfaction or the Court held that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction.   b) Individual measures   No individual measures were required, in view of the new legislation adopted in Italy (see general measures).     II.   General measures   Law No. 95/2004, which entered into force as from 15   April 2004, amended the Prison Administration Act No.   354/1975 which was at the origin of the violations found by the Court. The current legislation provides clear grounds for imposing monitoring or restriction of prisoners’ correspondence and time-limits for such measures. It also provides that correspondence with the Convention organs is exempt from monitoring and extends judicial review to cover the monitoring or restriction of prisoners’ correspondence. It is now possible to lodge a complaint before a sentence execution court against a decision concerning monitoring or restriction of correspondence (see resolution ResDH(2005)55 adopted on 5/07/2007 ending the examination of certain cases similar to the present cases, in particular the Calogero Diana case). Italian authorities also adopted administrative measures to ensure effective implementation of the new legislative provisions.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent other, similar violations, and that Italy has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 June 2009 at the 1059th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies